If it is rigt for the government to steel 500 billion $ from tax payers money, not to mention tax cuts, to spend it on subsidies, bailouts and non bidding contracts, which are the modern day equivalent for subsidies, for companies that cannot keep up a desent check book that have failed managment that reward themselves for bringing the companey more and more into the red, then by God we deserve to be treated like these companies by giving the poor, the uneducated and most importantly the sick the same care that we give to companies that not only steel from us, but even outsource our jobs.

By the way I am talking about the US but the situation is exactly the same here in Saudi Arabia, just take one zero out and I am talking about KSA.

Tax cuts can be a very good thing, and subsidizing; because they both promote more production, and trade. Thus increasing the overall income of their workers, and the amount of workers there are.

http://www.outsourcing-offshore.com/dobbs.html Please read this article about outsourcing, or "offshoring". It'll explain it better then I can. We do give the poor, and the sick care. We don't give the uneducated able-to-work care because normally in America "uneducated" means they dropped out in high school by choice, and they are reaping the rewards of that choice.

So, if we did things your way, and had a government run medical system. Just check out Canada's medicare system. A lot of them die waiting for health care, or try to get in America or some other country.

In case you wondered I am a libertarian, I don't believe in taxes period.

But taxes must be imposed if we are to run a state. I detest the European welfare state because it is a nanny state not a welfare state. Welfare state means that only essentials are taken care of, retirement ensurance, long term and expensive health care costs and basic education but the european model is just outragegous punishing the middle and upper classes because people chose not to take the right path in their life and thus the burden of keeping them is the responsibility of every one.

But I even detest more what is hapening in the US. In the US companies that do not deserve get free money from those who do not own. One of the most essential aspects of capitalism is personal responsibilty, if you go on a venture you know what is in it for you and what is in it against you and whatever happens is your responsibility. That was what made Americas great companies back in the good old days. In those days these companies did not wait for government charity or lucrative contract given for free. They worked on great projects based on their own intiative and it worked. When the Wright brother approached the American government for help they were given the cold shoulder and yet the US became the world largest and most innovative aviation industry. Nowadays the congressionl corporate agents, wrongly called representative and senators, are far more interested in the prosperity of the corporation they represent than the welfare of their own citizen. Certain politicians call for doom and gloom when ever a social or economic legistlation is presented because it is steeling tax payers money and giving it to failiure, like what happened to the child health care bill. But when it comes to failed corporations that left no rule in the books that they did not break, that are full of irregularity and irresponsibility you see them the first to call for free bailouts with out any strings, like what happened in the latest credit crunch. In times of ecomonic hardships and in case of strategic economic sectors, there I have no problems with bailouts, loans that is, and tax cuts. But to bailout the greed of these corporations and their mismanagement is to say to them is totally unacceptable, in my humble opinion it is nothing but steeling.

Corruption is not avoidable in any government. Please do not act like the sky is falling, that is a very liberal-popular trait. Nearly all American media is liberal bias which is why the American people tend to be misinformed. Try to find a solution, and think it through, don't just aim fire, or complain until the sky does fall. Thats what they did in canada when they began their medicare system.

"People need medical care.""I know what we should do! Lets pay for them all with money out of their pockets for the greater good, therefor making everyone carry one persons burden, and greatly harm the efficiency of our medical system!"

I agree with you, in a perfect world there would be no taxes, and there would be no need for money, but this is the real world.

I exclusively heard Rush Limbaugh and Laura Schlessinger for four years and still I was not convinced. I am neither a "liberal" nor a "conservative", I am Saudi Arabian and do not care for local politics of the US, I only care about foriegn policies. However if I were to be an American, I would definitely be a classic Gladstonean-Lloyd Georgian liberal with a conservative outlook.

As for solutions, they do exist. In Ireland for example there is an excellent complete and full health coverage system alogside private providers, an excellent retirement system and the country has a lower taxation level with respect to GDP (30.1 % if I remember correctly) than the US (34%-35). The same goes for Japan. Both countries have far more successful businesses than the US and far more competetiveness, productivity and a lot tougher laws against free bailouts.

There is no disagreement that people should pay for their own expenses, except those desperatly poor or bankrupt who are very small minority. But one thing I do not accept is for me to pay for the mistakes and wrong decision of others especially if these were companies that mismanaged their resources and then they come crying for help.

The health-care service in Ireland has been enacted for only two years. That is not enough time to tell if it has worked or not, also; Ireland is a smaller country. What might work there might not work in any larger country, same for japan.

I hate Moore. All he does is show every thing bad, and make up a few things along the way.

Productivity increases with lower tax rates, I agree that taxes should be lowered. If it is possible for a government run medical system then I'm all for it, but that is as likely as the USA building a space station on mars in the next five years.

Both countries have far more successful businesses than the US and far
more competetiveness, productivity and a lot tougher laws against free
bailouts.

I agree with you. Stop complaining. Figure it out.

Your some what modern liberal, some what good ol' liberal from when they were sane. Encourage sanity, and debate pros and cons before you agree with them. A lot of people agree with some thing just because they want it to be true, think with logic only.

If that's the way you feel, that's the way you feel. Don't however claim to be Christian. The major institution that has enforced that on the public over the centuries has been the Church (most if not all churches).

HAHAHAHA! You should not claim to be Christian either if you come in here with that.

I don't. I'm glad to see you are not being hypocritical about it. Many people are.

I can't count how many times God says "Ye will not help them, or preach to them because of their creed". For centuries religion has been the biggest aggressor for war. Marx himself "Religion is opium for the masses"

Good will towards other people absolutely, it should NEVER be enforced by the government.

Why not?

Because you are taking away their right to be happy, and wealthy.

No-one has a right to be wealthy. Not even Paris Hilton. No-one has a right to be happy for that matter. It's not a question of rights, but of the biological fact that humans are a pack animal, and the social fact that the kind of social organisation you are talking about falls apart.

The two major economic/social lessons of the 20th century are that Soviet Communism doesn't work (exemplified by the fate of the Soviet Union, and its abandonment by China) and that free-market capitalism doesn't work (exmplified above all by the events of the 'thirties, but also the similar depressions of the 19th century, and the crime rate of societies like the US compared to that of the social democratic ones).

It is a right that must be pursued by an individual, not given to them. Basically, you must fight for your own survival if you are capable. America has plenty of welfare programs for people who cannot provide for themselves. But, we will not tolerate lazy slouches. In my opinion let the rich be rich! Because they earned it.

In fact I don't have much trouble with rich people who earned their money. Vastly however in the US (as elsewhere) rich people are rich because their parents were. The moderately well off like Gates may make it to the super-rich, but the poor don't. (Even if they did in the days of the frontier, which is pretty doubtful)

What happens in the kind of society you describe is that the rich get richer and the poor poorer. As a result the economy eventually stalls because it depends essentially on the ability of the majority of the population to consume what is manufactured.

My point is that the system doesn't make her work. Or her parents for that matter. Conrad Hilton used to work, I'll grant you.

The point is they have the FREEDOM, to either be productive people, or sit on their butts, and suffer for it. Paris Hilton does not have to be productive because she does not have to support herself. Which is exactly what a welfare state hands to people.

If it's all right for Paris Hilton to sit on her hands and get funded, why is it wrong for other people? Quite apart from the economic arguments for the welfare state, which are determinative from a non-ethical point of view.

Because you go to jail (or at least ostracised) if you don't. 'From each according to his ability', remember?

Ok, lets throw every one who doesn't work into jail, so they can have free food, and free beds. While we pay for it. That teaches people to work real hard

Now you are supporting Communism. What happened to freedom?

Marxist communism is not bad in words. In action it is not possible.

Well I agree with the second sentence but not the first. Marxist analysis is flawed I think, but that's another topic.

The welfare state isn't Marxist. At least it's not a Marxist concept or the Marxist ideal. It's foundations are more on religion and empirical economic analysis than anything else.

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

I didn't have time to address a few things in my last post, so I will address them now.

Cherokee communism, you're wrong. Utopian communism, wrong again.

Cherokee communism worked because the tribe is just like a family. Each work, each take care of those who do not work with in the family. So, in a sense its just like what you said here.

Precisely. If you want to argue that welfare systems work best when they are decentralised, I'd probably agree with you.

The normal result of that is that people channel their charity to people they know or who belong to societies they know

Utopian communism does not work in the real world. The fact bears in its very name.

Agreed.

That tends to mean that charity flows, for instance, within the Baptist or Catholic or whatever community and congregation and stays with members of that in-group.

I can't count how many charity groups there are. I can't count how many I've participated in over the years. When I went to school we had at least 1 or 2 charity programs a year. When I went to boy scouts every time you turn around we're doing charity work.

Red CrossCity of Hope and affiliatesCARESave the Children

Those are all non-religious charity programs.

I didn't mean to imply that all charities were religious. I did mean to imply that lots of them put restrictions on the population the benefits go to. But not all. We support Médecins sans Frontières for example. I don't see your point though.

Yes they do. Think of all the people who work for Paris Hilton and her family. Think of all the people who worked for Ken Laye. Their goal may be their own and their family's well-being, but they are rarely the only people who benefit from their labour.

I think the answer to this question is the most obvious. They had an employer (AKA Hilton family) who paid them a certain amount of money to work for them, thus advancing, and providing for their families. One could even argue that having people like the Hilton family is very beneficial because they provide work for a variety of people.

That is, people work for other people, not for themselves (on the whole). You'r now arguing that the rich shouldn't have to work, as long as they pay others to work for them. In other words you don't mind people being idle slackers as long as they are rich (or had rich ancestors). Doesn't sound very logical to me.

Sounds to me like the kind of decadent aristocratic society the US was built to get away from.

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

So, if we did things your way, and had a government run medical system. Just check out Canada's medicare system. A lot of them die waiting for health care, or try to get in America or some other country.

Straight nonsense. The real truth is that stacks of Americans depend on buying their medicines in Canada (or Mexico even) because they can't pay for them in the US.

Americans pay more than anyone else in the world for health care. And they have the 37th best service as a result (according to the WHO). I had the bad luck to be in the US four years ago when I had a minor heart problem. As a result I was in hospital for two nights, and on an operating table (only a local anaesthic) for about a half-hour while they put in a stent.

The bill? Thirty three thousand dollars.

I investigated what it would have cost the government system (not me personally) in Luxembourg. Answer: a little over three thousand euros, of which I would have had to pay some 300. I repeat: the cost to the system in Luxembourg was one tenth of the cost in the US.

Of course not too many of the tens of millions of uninsured in the US would have been able to fork out thirty-three thousand. They would have got the treatment (thanks to one of the few pieces of welfare state federal legislation) but they would still have had to pay the bill by instalments.

It's unbelievable the way Americans will put up with the health system they have, pay way over the odds for it, and still claim other people's systems are worse.

Edited by gcle2003 - 12-Oct-2007 at 16:12

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

The health-care service in Ireland has been enacted for only two years.

Ridiculous. It may well have been tinkered with.

That is not enough time to tell if it has worked or not, also; Ireland is a smaller country. What might work there might not work in any larger country, same for japan.

Looked at the population of Japan lately? This is small?

I hate Moore. All he does is show every thing bad, and make up a few things along the way.

Productivity increases with lower tax rates,

Nope.

I agree that taxes should be lowered. If it is possible for a government run medical system then I'm all for it, but that is as likely as the USA building a space station on mars in the next five years.

Both countries have far more successful businesses than the US and far more competetiveness, productivity and a lot tougher laws against free bailouts.

I agree with you. Stop complaining. Figure it out.

our some what modern liberal, some what good ol' liberal from when they were sane. Encourage sanity, and debate pros and cons before you agree with them. A lot of people agree with some thing just because they want it to be true, think with logic only.

Edited by gcle2003 - 12-Oct-2007 at 16:16

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Capitalism needs to be balanced with socialism which is why we have two parties in the government.

Looked at the population of Japan lately? This is small?

Japanese 123 million to the US 300 million.

Ridiculous. It may well have been tinkered with.

Mistake, three years. years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Nope.

Please state more then nope. Lower taxes increase production because the populous has more money to spend, and invest. Thus creating more market.

Straight nonsense. The real truth is that stacks of Americans depend on
buying their medicines in Canada (or Mexico even) because they can't
pay for them in the US.

Medication is cheap in Canada, what I was referring to was medical service. I will illustrate my point below.

Americans pay more than anyone else in the world for health care.
And they have the 37th best service as a result (according to the WHO).
I had the bad luck to be in the US four years ago when I had a minor
heart problem. As a result I was in hospital for two nights, and on an
operating table (only a local anaesthic) for about a half-hour while
they put in a stent.

The bill? Thirty three thousand dollars.

Guess what? If you were in Canada, you would have died waiting in line before you saw a doctor. I think thirty thousand is well worth your life.

If you can give me evidence that the system works in long-term with out results such as Canada's I will say let the government run it. I have researched Ireland's system, I find it very interesting, and I think it could work.

I agree with you the medical costs are ridiculous. It cost me 300 dollars to get ten stitches. I nearly said "I'll do it myself next time!"

No-one has a right to be wealthy. Not even Paris Hilton. No-one has a right to be happy
for that matter. It's not a question of rights, but of the biological
fact that humans are a pack animal, and the social fact that the kind
of social organisation you are talking about falls apart.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Ok, you no longer have the right to be happy, you serve the government, the government does not serve you. Now what? Monarchy. Government was created to protect, and serve the people, to give us the chance to pursue happiness, and not baby-sit us every step. If it does not you are speaking of oligarchy. I am all for government run medical care. IS IT POSSIBLE? Is what I have a problem, and including all socialism. Is it possible? History says NO. Socialism, and capitalism need to be in balance together. That balance is rocking here. One capitalist is in this forum, and that is becoming an awful trend in the world.

precisely. If you want to argue that welfare systems work best when they are decentralised, I'd probably agree with you.

So you agree with the current welfare system in America? Because that is what it is.

thanks for your reply. I guess that Senator Edwards and Howard Dean's ideas should be a starting point for fixing the problem of health care. I was not implying in my post a full socialisation of health care and that the federal government should do it because it is not practical. Instead, such programs with varying degrees of coverage should be the responsibility of the state or even the county. The only two groups that realy deserve coverage are the elderly and the children, any body else should pay for his/her health care. But what really interested me is that MEDICARE/MEDICAID programs spend more per-capita on the American patient than the european counterparts but is lightyears away from the level provided by Germany which means that interest groups really control spending.

As for Michael Moore's pictures well I only partly saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and I heard all about his film Sicko on NPR and unfortunatly as gcle said before, what he aid is true. Our neighbour worked there for several years, one of his boys was born prematurely and the cost of 1 month care was over 20 000 $ and that was when health care costs were low in 96, since his yearly income was 100 000$ he did not have much of a problem paying off but imagine if he had a mortgage, a combined income of 80 000 $ and other costs, how the hell is he going o pay for this keeping in ind he had a full coverage for himself and his family in addition to the company coverage, only God know's how much his company paid.

As for Ireland, there were two health care acts, one in 1970 which is basically the same as the one today except for certain administrative changes and a 1947 act. Also, Europe has much higher taxes and productivity in general than the US.

I saw Moore's documentary on the Iraq war. A lot of it was over reaction to seeing what war really is. Thanks to the media today war REAL war is on our TV screens, and most people cannot handle seeing such things. It is ugly, and the truth of it is there of civilians killed in bombings, the government taps phones, and investigates thoroughly. It was no different in WWII or any other war, MORE civilians died in that war then I could fathom. A lot of what he said in bowling for columbine was completely inaccurate. I cannot say any thing about his other films, but generally I do not respect the man as a intelligent individual.

Health care is a highly demanding job, and few people get into. It is following the economics code supply, and demand.

As for Ireland, there were two health care acts, one in 1970 which is
basically the same as the one today except for certain administrative
changes and a 1947 act. Also, Europe has much higher taxes and
productivity in general than the US.

I need to research the act more in depth before I can comment further on this. I did a very short reading and presumed an act that I saw that was recently dated was what you are speaking of.

GDP per capita tells you nothing about productivity, it only gives a rough sketch about the wealth distribution in a country without going much into detail. In most countries it is enough to make an accurate assumption but as you see in the list, Qatar is number 15 with 33 000$ but that is not the case their, half the street of the capital aren't even paved and people stil live in tents from poverty there. Also, it does take into account non-effective population like unemployed (12% in France, 15% in Germany), retired and children which in percentage terms take roughly half of the population away. I will not go deep into the mumbo jumbo of economic indicators and how to analyze them because they are beyond this discussion, but if you are interested go to the world bank site and the economist intelligence unit for starters and you will find there some interesting facts.

As for health care, unfortunately, the current situation in the health care is just beyond the laws of supply and demand. Health care costs in the US and abroad have been growing counter to every supply and demand law that exist. Not mentioning tax breaks and subsidies for the industry which are overpriced, the growth in costs passed both industry as well as national inflations rates and the service per dollar given has deteriorated significantly. This is not supply and demand.

Capitalism needs to be balanced with socialism which is why we have two parties in the government.

A parochial non sequitur. The US has two parties taking turn and turn about, but most places have more than two.

I don't understand the bit about running in circles.

Looked at the population of Japan lately? This is small?

Japanese 123 million to the US 300 million.

And the same order of magnitude. What works for 123 million should work for 300. Anyway, even if there was a magic turning point at 200 million, no US state is as big as Japan, so just break it up into state-sized chunks. I've certzainly no problem with that.

Ridiculous. It may well have been tinkered with.

Mistake, three years. years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Still ridiculous. The General Medical Scheme was introduced in 1970. And before that the public hospitals were, ingeniously, financed through international lotteries (the famous 'Irish Sweep'). In fact some public health care traces back to 1922 and the Free State.

Also you have to remember that the Church provided a great deal more health services than in most countries (and opposed having its leadership taken away from it).

Nope.

Please state more then nope. Lower taxes increase production because the populous has more money to spend, and invest. Thus creating more market.

Increased capital investment increases productivity (except when it fails because it doesn't work). Private agencies tend not to invest in capital improvements, but spend money on consumption, on investment in vehicles like buying current shares on the stock market (taking up IPOs may lead to capital investment, but it isn't guaranteed), real estate, art, buying more expensive cars, using more oil, and the like.

Lower taxes, per se, are simply inflationary in the medium term as the market reacts to the extra monetary demand.

Straight nonsense. The real truth is that stacks of Americans depend on buying their medicines in Canada (or Mexico even) because they can't pay for them in the US.

Medication is cheap in Canada, what I was referring to was medical service. I will illustrate my point below.

Americans pay more than anyone else in the world for health care. And they have the 37th best service as a result (according to the WHO). I had the bad luck to be in the US four years ago when I had a minor heart problem. As a result I was in hospital for two nights, and on an operating table (only a local anaesthic) for about a half-hour while they put in a stent.

The bill? Thirty three thousand dollars.

Guess what? If you were in Canada, you would have died waiting in line before you saw a doctor. I think thirty thousand is well worth your life.

That'sn just outrageous propaganda.

In Luxembourg I'd have got attention just as fast if not faster. and it wouldn't have cost anyone that kind of ripoff charge.

If you can give me evidence that the system works in long-term with out results such as Canada's I will say let the government run it. I have researched Ireland's system, I find it very interesting, and I think it could work.

I agree with you the medical costs are ridiculous. It cost me 300 dollars to get ten stitches. I nearly said "I'll do it myself next time!"

Well, that's private health systems for you.

No-one has a right to be wealthy. Not even Paris Hilton. No-one has a right to be happy for that matter. It's not a question of rights, but of the biological fact that humans are a pack animal, and the social fact that the kind of social organisation you are talking about falls apart.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Ok, you no longer have the right to be happy, you serve the government, the government does not serve you.

I didn't say that. The government is there to serve the people. That doesn't mean they have the right to be happy. Even the founders of the American Republic didn't go that far. They promulgated the rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', not happiness itself. Moreover, there's not much point in a right to life without a right to health. In fact without a right to health there is no right to life.

Now what? Monarchy. Government was created to protect, and serve the people, to give us the chance to pursue happiness, and not baby-sit us every step.

If you'd stop the silly hyperbole, you might have more chance of creating a sensible argument. Noone is advocating 'babysitting' people 'at every step'.

If it does not you are speaking of oligarchy. I am all for government run medical care. IS IT POSSIBLE? Is what I have a problem, and including all socialism. Is it possible? History says NO.

But history says 'YES' and it says it with overwhelming consistency. Health systems work everywhere in the civilised world EXCEPT the US. Of course they aren't perfect, of course some work better in some ways, others in other ways.

And I never said it had to be government run. It's not government run in Luxembourg. It's privately run (with the exception that some of the hospitals are owned by the local government, and some are run by nuns). What it is is government insured. I pay insurance into one of several state-managed insurance schemes, and it pays for my treatment or medicines or whatever. Those charges are negotiated between the insurance group and the doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies and so on.

But the insurance groups are not trying to make a profit, just to provide a service. So the cost of the system is way lower than it is in the US, but access to it is not interfered with: I choose the doctor to go to, I go to specialists I choose (actually usually the one recommended by my GP) and it rarely takes me more than a few days to set up an appointment, even for non-critical illnesses.

So please stop talking about 'government-run' schemes. We're talking about what actually happens in Europe, not some ideologue's propaganda version of it.

Socialism, and capitalism need to be in balance together. That balance is rocking here. One capitalist is in this forum, and that is becoming an awful trend in the world.

precisely. If you want to argue that welfare systems work best when they are decentralised, I'd probably agree with you.

So you agree with the current welfare system in America? Because that is what it is.

What there is is to some extent decentralised. There is no general public health service in the US except for Medicare (which is federally run and only affects a few people other than the old) and Medicaid (which is state run and in most places only affects the very poor - in Georgia you must have under $2,000 in assets other than your car and home. Medicaid doesn't cover medications, without which health care doesn't amount to much, because you die anyway. Medicare also doesn't pay prescription charges for most people, and in fact covers less now than it did before the last revision, which was supposed to help old people.

Northman: Edited the text to a larger size

Edited by Northman - 13-Oct-2007 at 17:23

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Agreed. GDP per hour worked is a better measure (while still not perfect, being money-based as GDP derivatives must be). The OECD gives the top dozen countries for GDP per hour normalised so the US is 100, as

and gives the base figures for population, GDP, hourse worked and so on.

I can't locate any decent international tax comparisons, but as I recall, the US tax burden (federal plus state, direct plus indirect) is a fair bit higher than the UK nowadays, though lower than the countries above it in the table.

Anyway one should, where there is no compulsory health system payment, add on to taxes the payments made for private insurance or treatment, since the payments are not voluntary, except in the sense that a muggee handing over his wallet to a mugger is acting voluntarily.

Edited by gcle2003 - 13-Oct-2007 at 15:48

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

I am now reading Milton Friedman's book "Bright Promises, Dismal Performance" and the guy has lots of good points. On principle, I am with minimal regulation and government interference in the economy however, like Friedman acknowledged, there are certain sectros of the economy that the government has to interfer and play with because they are beyond the capability of the private sector. The current system for free choice of health insurers must stay as it is because frankly, if you have a job you should take care for yourself and pay your own expenses, ma government should never allowed to exist. But unemployed who lost their insurence as well as elderly and the underaged children all should be covered in a national scheme that replaces MEDICARE/MEDICAID programs. Already the US pays on its citizens per capit through those two programs more than france does and France has a better coverage. How the system works, well I do not know the system in the US, it can be implemented via state level or county level or what ever but the nearer to the consumer the better the deal, Vermont covered all the children there and the system can be a starting point.

Agreed. GDP per hour worked is a better measure (while still not perfect, being money-based as GDP derivatives must be). The OECD gives the top dozen countries for GDP per hour normalised so the US is 100, as

and gives the base figures for population, GDP, hourse worked and so on.

I can't locate any decent international tax comparisons, but as I recall, the US tax burden (federal plus state, direct plus indirect) is a fair bit higher than the UK nowadays, though lower than the countries above it in the table.

Anyway one should, where there is no compulsory health system payment, add on to taxes the payments made for private insurance or treatment, since the payments are not voluntary, except in the sense that a muggee handing over his wallet to a mugger is acting voluntarily.

I would be wary of the accuracy of estimates of 'hours worked'. Most people do not use a clock card and many people do not work standard hours. The report you linked to notes that some figures, particulaly those for France where officially they are not allowed to work more than 35 hours, have had to be changed.

GDP is an objective measure of how wealthy a country is. Wealth is produced by people thus the ideal productivity measure is GDP per capita.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum